Talk:East Asian cultural sphere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:


No mention of Taiwan in 2nd paragraph? Ok. Taiwan is a Chinese civilization or part of China. And KMT is a bad loser. All agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jing345 (talkcontribs) 11:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


Sinophone (漢語圈) is not the same as Chinese character cultural sphere (漢字文化圈). Countries like Japan, Vietnam, and Korean never spoke Chinese but they adopted Chinese characters and Classical Chinese as their official writing system and written language. The statement "It differs from Sinophone includes countries such as Japan, Korea and Vietnam which have historically made some use of the Chinese writing system or currently make use of it" should be revised. For clarification of translations please refer to the section below. --N6EpBa7Q (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Misleading Interlanguage Links![edit]

What you see above should be the correct translation, but the "Chinese character cultural sphere" (漢字文化圈) articles in the East Asian language versions of Wikipedia are being redirected to the article "East Asian cultural sphere"! The interlanguage links in Chinese (Zh), Cantonese Chinese (Zh-yue), Mingdong Chinese (Cdo), Vietnamese (Vi), Japanese (Ja), and Korean (Ko) realy should not point to "Chinese character cultural sphere."

East Asian cultural sphere vs "Chinese character cultural sphere[edit]

East Asian cultural sphere (東亞文化圈) is not the same as "Chinese character cultural sphere" or the more common name "Chinese character cultural sphere" (漢字文化圈). This article discusses the two as if they were one topic and the interlanguage links of the article are very messy and misleading.

The concept 漢字文化圈 emphasizes on Chinese literacy culture, while 東亞文化圈 emphasizes on Chinese culture itself. However, the interlanguage links to the Chinese, Japanese, and other East Asian version of the article East Asian cultural sphere are coming instead from "Chinese character cultural sphere."

Please migrate the interlanguage links that refer to 漢字文化圈 to Adoption of Chinese literary culture instead of East Asian cultural sphere. --N6EpBa7Q (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


|romaji=kanji bunkaken |hanja=漢字文化圈 |hangul=한자문화권 |rr=hanja munhwagwon |qn=Hán tự văn hoá quyển(Sino-Viet.)
Khu vực văn hóa chữ Hán (native)[1][2] |hn=漢字文化圈 (Sino-Viet.)
區域文化𡨸漢 (native)}}

The ways of saying "Chinese cultural sphere" in major languages of Sinosphere.

Recent pro-Chinese POV edits[edit]

The new map added by User:Durianlover1 has way too much of a pro-Chinese POV. I've reverted it back to the original. I highly doubt that all of Siberia, Central Asia, Nepal, and Southeast Asia are part of a single cultural sphere.--Ross Monroe (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt that all of South Asia, Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, Southwest China, and the Philippines are part of a single cultural sphere, but a similarly gradiose map exists on Greater India. It all depends on the criteria used to label the area, which in that case is the historical use of some Indic script, the adoption of Buddhism by some of the populace, and even the existence of certain loan words from Sanskrit. Reverting someone based on your intuition that they "have way too much of a pro-Chinese POV" is pretty inflammatory, and there are more tactful ways to handle questions of defining this concept. Shrigley (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I have put back the revised map as it is a more accurate representation of Chinese cultural sphere. The old map refers to the Sinophere world, where Chinese character was/is used - primarily in PRC, ROC, ROK, DPRK, and Japan. As for the claim that it's too pro-Chinese POV, I am simply the messenger - don't shoot me. As for your doubt whether all of those countries are within a single cultural sphere, I agree that there are more than one influencing culture. Some of those countries were/are also part of Greater India and Islamic world (Indonesia, Malaysia, Western China, etc). Durianlover1 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I have revised the article, with new references from Western scholars and a more neutral tone. That nonsense about Siberia and Nepal being part of China needs to stay out. Also, no more edit wars, if anyone wants to discuss why I took the map out, talk about it here and not by reverting its deletion.--Ross Monroe (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"More accurate"? Really? Do you have sources to back that up? [citation needed] please. Comparisons to Greater India are completely irrelevant. I'm not sure why you and Shrigley are bringing it up. I'm not trying to insult you, and I apologize if I overreacted, but we need sources here.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Yupe, you overreacted on this matter and I have escalated this issue for resolution. There are extensive of facts and historical artifacts supported it. How about yours? Do you have any evidence that "Chinese cultural sphere" only refers to China, Vietnam, Japan, and Korea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durianlover1 (talkcontribs) 03:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Look at all the sources listed under References in the article. The usage by Nishijima Sadao, Samuel P. Huntington, Edwin O. Reischauer, and Arnold J. Toynbee shows that this mainly applies to the core East Asian countries.--Ross Monroe (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
For Central Asia: Biran, Michal. The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World, Cambridge, CUP, 2005 (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization)Durianlover1 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
For South East Asia: Chee-kiong Tong. Identity and Ethnic Relations in Southeast Asia: Racializing Chineseness. Springer, 2010 Durianlover1 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
For North Asia: Ann Reid (2002). The Shaman's Coat: A Native History of Siberia. Walker & Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durianlover1 (talkcontribs) 06:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
None of the sources present specifically mentioned that the regions are part of the Sinic world, Chinese cultural sphere, or the hundreds of other labels for the concept. Nishijima Sadao does include Mongolia as part of the cultural sphere, and Huntington includes Singapore and other Southeast Asian countries with major Chinese minorities. Could we compromise?--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this article in general is very Chinese POV. This article is poorly referenced, and the terminology is used liberally without alternative considerations. For instance, the term in Korean refers to Greater China rather than a Chinese cultural sphere that includes Korea. Either this article needs some major rework, or it needs to be merged with a more proper subject. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Chinese cultural sphere is a notable concept, the article just needs to be improved. The so-called "Sinic World" is an academic topic that can be handled neutrally. This article on JSTOR should be used as a guide for how to improve the neutrality of this article.--Ross Monroe (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Cydevil38 that there should be a proper terminology for it. When "Chinese" is referenced in this article, it doesn't mean that it supports PRC or ROC claim on those countries. This article should be objective and provide an overview of history. Let's find a better word for "Chinese cultural sphere". How about "Sinic cultural sphere"? Any better suggestion? Durianlover1 (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I replied to Cydevil38 stating that Sinic world is the more common name. If you, Shrigley, and Cydevil want to change it to that, that's fine with me.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I think N6EpBa7Q cogently addressed this issue and went on to create an article that is more appropriate for the topic. While this POV fork is a WP policy violation, nonetheless Adoption of Chinese literary culture provides a more appropriate context under which the topic is presented. Therefore, I recommend merging this article with Adoption of Chinese literary culture or delete this article, while renaming Adoption of Chinese literary culture to a more appropriate title. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I've read some of the discussions at the previous Sinosphere article. If this article and Adoption of Chinese literary culture cover somewhat different subjects, then I suggest using East Asian cultural sphere, which can be translated to 東亞文化圏. While "East Asian cultural sphere" is not very commonly used, neither are the alternatives, such as "Sinic world" or "Confucian world". Meanwhile, "East Asian cultural sphere" can be conveniently translated to relevant concepts in pertinent languages, such as Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The book is three decades old. I just perused recent academic articles, and many of them use "Chinese cultural sphere" in a different meaning, similar to the definition used in Sinophone world. This is also the case for the Korean terminology, which is used to refer to the Sinophone world. The figure posted here refers to a different Korean terminology, which is used for [Adoption of Chinese literary culture]. I recommend merging Sinophone world and Chinese cultural sphere, under the definition of Sinophone world using whichever title that is more appropriate, and using Adoption of Chinese literary culture for the current definition of Chinese cultural sphere". Cydevil38 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Search for "Sinic world" or "Confucian world", which brings up more results. The definition of Sinophone refers to people who speak Chinese, or one of the many dialects of Chinese. The Sinic world includes most of East Asia (Korea, Japan, and Vietnam) which are not considered Sinophone countries, while the Sinophone world includes places like Malaysia and Singapore that aren't part of the Sinic world. The Far East cultural sphere is notable as an academic topic and has been discussed by many scholars, including in Huntington's famous book, The Clash of Civilizations. Sinophone and Sinic are very distinct, and merging it will confuse readers like the original Sinosphere article did.--Ross Monroe (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that the term "Chinese cultural sphere" is not commonly used to refer to the concept presented here. Rather, it is commonly used to refer to what you call the "Sinophone world". The Korean transliteration presented here, "중화문화권", also specifically refer to the "Sinophone world". Somehow, the split of Sinosphere went very wrong, and we have these conflicting terminologies. What we need is a common term used in English, and it would be better if this term also translates to the corresponding terms in Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese. If you think "Sinic world" or "Confucian world" is bring up more results, which means they are more common than the currently used term, then one of them should replace "Chinese culture sphere", which is an inappropriate title for this article. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no problems with Sinic world. Per your suggestion, and that of Durian's, I will move it. WP:COMMONNAME is what matters. I'm not sure about the Korean translation, but one of the problems with English and foreign language translations is that they don't perfect match up, like the discussion on Talk:Sinosphere.--Ross Monroe (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
How about East Asian cultural sphere? Although itself is not very commonly used, it's more commonly used than the term Sinic world, and it has corresponding concepts in other languages. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I have moved the title to Sinic world. I hope that the new title is more neutral. One of the problems with Wikipedia is that on many Chinese articles, a pro-Chinese bias can be prevalent.--Ross Monroe (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The Sinic world still bears the problems I have previously pointed out. It's not very commonly used, and its corresponding terms in other languages specifically refer to the "Sinophone world". In this regard, I have suggested "East Asian cultural sphere", which is also defined in East Asia, and has corresponding terms in other languages. What is your opinion on this alternative? Cydevil38 (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The eminent scholars Huntington and Reischauer both use Sinic world or civilization as the name for the cultural sphere. Fogel isn't as famous as the other two, but he also promotes the term. A quick Google books and Google scholar search shows more results for it than for East Asian cultural sphere. Do you have any sources that show that "East Asian cultural sphere" is more common? "Sinophone world" is used in English as a term for spoken Chinese, which is what has priority per WP:COMMONNAME. I am not opposed to using an alternative name, if it can be shown that it has been used by prominent academics.--Ross Monroe (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Although Sinic world is more common, you may have a point that East Asian cultural sphere is more neutral. I have moved it as per your suggestion.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't see the move. If you move the page to East Asian cultural sphere, I can change the corresponding terminologies in other languages except for Vietnamese. Here's a link to the page used for East Asia in defining it as a "cultural" concept.[1] Google scholars indicate East Asian cultural sphere is less common than Sinic world, but considering how the term "East Asia" is often used to define a cultural sphere, I think East Asian cultural sphere may present a much more common and NPOV terminology. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Rice as main staple food[edit]

"Rice is a main staple food in all of East Asia and is a major focus of food security.[23] In East Asian countries, cooked rice is a synonym of food."

The statement is true for the present history where rice can be found in most of Sinic world civilization. That's said, in the past history rice was not the main staple food in Northern China, only in Southeast Asia and Southern China. Wheat-based food dominated Northern China and other regions. Durianlover1 (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on exciting and useful article + suggestions[edit]

Friends: several editors have put a lot of work on this article, as you well know, so I thought I would offer my congratulations on a terrific start on an important topic, whatever you decide to call it. The Section "Cultural commonalities" shows an excellent selection of topics.

I do suggest, however, that the article will be much stronger and carry more weight if you:

  • Find more Reliable Sources#Some types of sources. The impression I get is that the references came from taking the first thing that turned up on a Google search. Wang Hui is a great man, but citing one passage in a random article is not good. Sun Lung-kee is a wonderful historian, but by no means the authority to cite on Arnold Toynbee.
Sometimes you just can't find good sources on the internet, or at least you can't tell from looking at Google searches which sources are better than others. If you are near a college or university library, it's much better to look there. Librarians are eager to help.
  • I've already suggested in an Edit that you be careful in formatting your citations. Do not cite the editor of the volume, cite the author of the essay. I know it's a pain, but this article is important and you should do your work in a way that will last. For instance, who wrote the article in the book edited by Brook & Luong?
  • Also remember that the English Wikipedia prefers English language sources. When a Chinese source is better, it has to be cited in Chinese, not by a translation of the title into English. This is because the notes are not only to show where you got the material but to lead readers to works which they can read (another reason to give solid general sources).

Some specifics:

  • Note 10. What is this reference? Huang's book appears to be in Chinese and needs to be replaced with a good reference.
  • Note 12, 13, 15. Komicki is a perfectly good reference -- but for some other topic. You can do better than this!
  • Note #14. Miyake. No book. Appears to be a broken reference.
  • Note 17. No need to say "retrieved" for a book, only for a web reference which can change.
  • Note #18. This is a BIG PROBLEM! First: cite the title "Transition ... in the First Half of the Twentieth Century") and author (" X. Yu")of the essay, not the editor of the book. Second: When you see the title, you will realize that the essay is not what you want. You cannot do good work if you just Google and find a passing reference. To do the good work of which you are clearly capable, you need to find the most reliable source.
  • Note #19. Two problems: First, the Section Business Culture describes economic development, but does not relate it to the theme of the article. Second: Harrington & Wharf is a fine book, but it is not concerned with "business culture." Get thee to a library!
  • #20 Davidson is an OK source, though there are far better ones; but the specific article must be cited by Title and author: Naomichi Ishige, "Food Culture of East Asia." And you need to give more of the details, such as the exceptions to the statement that "Rice is the main staple of food in all of East Asia..." BTW, what is a "staple of food"? Why not just say "many people in East Asia eat rice"?
  • #21. Oh -- now I see. Chern et al. say "rice is the most important staple food in East Asia." You did not quote carefully. Also, "food security" is not part of "cuisine."

The editors' work on this page is smart and committed. I offer my suggestions in a spirit of admiration, in the confidence that you will take them in this spirit. But to make Wikipedia work, we all have to do careful work and follow the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. If it were easy, we wouldn't need Wikipedia, we'd just Google everything. ch (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Good work, and I strongly agree. It looks like the cultural commonalities section is composed of parts from other Wikipedia articles. I checked Huang's book on Amazon, and it does appear to be in English. The article should also directly reference Huntington's Clash of Civilizations and Toynbee's A Study of History.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Include Singapore and Macau?[edit]

Should Singapore be included as a member of the Sinosphere, considering the huge Chinese influence there? And what about Macau? ForestAngel (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


In East Asian countries, the word, 'rice' can embody the meaning of food in general (simplified Chinese: 饭; traditional Chinese: 飯; pinyin: fàn).

This needs to be rewritten. 饭 is only cooked rice. The plant is called 水稻. -- (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This might not be a good example. -- (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Millennium Era[edit]

Didn't the growing clout of China and Japan and South Korea during the Millennium Era affect the spread of the East Asian Cultural Sphere. I would point to the creation of Manga translated to English, and Animes, and animated films. Maybe that should be included in the section.Qwed117 (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Thời Trung đại trong văn học các nước khu vực văn hoá chữ Hán". 2009-09-24. Retrieved 2010-05-03. 
  2. ^ Thư mời hội thảo Quá trình hiện đại hóa văn học Nhật Bản và các nước khu vực văn hóa chữ Hán